Model Number NO163Z |
Device Problem
Loosening of Implant Not Related to Bone-Ingrowth (4002)
|
Patient Problems
Failure of Implant (1924); Pain (1994); Joint Disorder (2373); Ambulation Difficulties (2544)
|
Event Date 03/23/2016 |
Event Type
Injury
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Height :(b)(6).When additional information or investigation results become available, a supplemental report will be submitted.
|
|
Event Description
|
It was reported that there was an issue with an issue knee implant, left side.Initially, an orthoscopic procedure was performed on (b)(6) 2015.A partial knee replacement was done on (b)(6) 2016.Multiple office visits made because of severe pain.The patient continued to experience pain and consulted another surgeon.A new doctor ordered a 3d bone scan and it was noted that the components were loose.A revision surgery was necessary.The patient underwent a full knee revision on (b)(6)2017.The patient was unable to walk without a limp and does not have full mobility of the knee due to continuous surgeries and scar tissue.The patient was also unable to return to work.The adverse event is filed under (b)(4).Involved components: no186z (as univation xf femur cemented f2 lm), no163z as univation xf tibia cemented t2 lm), nl483 (univation f meniscal comp.T2 rm/lm 9mm).Associated medwatches: 2916714-2020-00646, 2916714-2020-00703.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
B5, b6, b7 updated: extensive medical history provided and reviewed.E1 - updated reporter.Investigation results: to date there is no device available for investigation.Therefore, no investigation possible.Batch history review: the device quality and manufacturing history records (dhr) have been checked for all available lot numbers and the products found to be according to our specification valid at the time of production.There are no similar complaints against the same lot number(s) with this error pattern.The current failure rate is within the risk analysis and therefore acceptable.Conclusion and measures / preventive measures: on the basis of the current information and without the product for investigation, a clear conclusion can not be drawn.There is no indication for a material defect, manufacturing failure or design error on the basis of the device history record.For further investigations we need the product for examination.Based on the investigations and results of the 8d report a capa is not necessary.
|
|
Event Description
|
Update: (b)(6) 2016 procedure - left knee medial unicompartmental arthroplasty.Normal operative course.(palacos bone cement).(b)(6) 2017 preop dx: failed unicompartmental total knee (partial knee) - nickel allergy noted.Indications: significant stiffness and pain, degenerative changes on the other side and patient has requested conversion to a total knee arthroplasty.History: conservative pain treatments have failed; steroid injection in the office with temporary relief; x-ray results showed no obvious signed of loosening, wear or failure.Procedure: revision of left knee; removal of previous knee implant without significant bone loss; replaced with non-aesculap products.(b)(6) 2019 hospital admission for prosthesis pain (imaging order diagnosis - possible infection/inflammatory reaction due to internal prosthetic device, implant, and/or graft) - 2nd bone scan.The patient is currently unable to walk without a limp and does not have full mobility of her knee due to continuous surgeries and scar tissue.The patient is unable to return to work.Associated medwatch: 2916714-2020-00646, 2916714-2020-00702, 2916714-2020-00703.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|